In various places (read: the intertubes) I have seen rhetoric in favour of gun ownership or the 2nd amendment. I've thought about it quite a bit, honestly, and I really hate guns and the 2nd amendment.
Last fall in a political science class, a classmate of mine said then-Senator Obama was anti-2nd amendment, but that position doesn't make sense, because "How can you be against the constitution?" Well, I'm against that particular part of the constitution, because it is woefully outdated. Let's look at the text, first off.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Sounds good of course, until you remember that the State's official Armed Forces have more powerful weaponry than any mere mortal can acquire legally or illegally. Short answer, if the government becomes tyrannical, and it becomes a citizen's duty to overthrow it, we're fucked. I'm not saying we should ALLOW that, but the fact is the military could make mincemeat of any uprising.
Another reason I'm against the 2nd amendment is that it lets people carry around a metal stick that makes it easier to kill people. Now there may be laws that prevent average Joe the Plumber (ba dum tiss!) actually walking around armed, but simply owning said metal stick that makes it easier to kill people is largely equivalent to carrying it around. Simply put, owning it means one can go home, get it, and return in much shorter time than buying a gun takes.
But Matt, I hear you say (silently), you own swords, which are quite literally metal sticks that make it easier to kill someone! And every kitchen has knives, which are the same! Indeed, I own swords, and that is an accurate way to describe them. Frankly though if I want to kill someone with one of my swords or a knife of any sort, I must get really close to them ... say within arm's reach. And if I'm within arm's reach they can defend themselves. If I were to use a gun I could do so from across a field and they have no way of self-defence against it let alone necessarily know about it before their head explodes, thus it's not "just as easy". But enough with that straw man.
I know some people prefer guns for home defence. Frankly, that's one of the few reasons that would qualify as good. But my parents don't own guns apart from two deactivated civil war firearms which are little more than heavy-ass heirlooms. I don't own guns, and don't really have any desire to. Frankly, I'm afraid of guns. That's not entirely accurate - I'm afraid of people. I'm afraid of people normally, but give them something that makes it easy to kill me makes me more afraid of them. I'm afraid of police for that reason too. I once had to help a police officer at work, and he was very much still armed. I have never felt more uncomfortable. This is how guns make me feel. They make me feel AFRAID.
Let me make something clear: I don't think guns make people act completely crazy. However the kind of people who have some desire to own a metal stick with a handle that launches metal projectiles through the air at sonic force to penetrate other people's skin in an effort to end their lives are at least a little crazy anyway. I own knives for food preparation and I own swords for aesthetic purposes - I think they look good mounted on walls (which means I won't likely have them unsheathed, much less easy to grab and slash with). I sincerely doubt anyone would break into my apartment - I live in a shitty apartment, shitty block, and have little of value to steal. People breaking into homes to cause violence to those who live there is extraordinarily rare unless it's done by an intimate - like most crimes, someone you know is far more likely to do it to you. I don't fear my neighbours any more than I fear the average person. ed: I have moved since I originally wrote this, and my neighbours are super old and frail. I am even less afraid of them now. If I knew they carried a gun around, I WOULD fear them a lot more.
I keep seeing people on facebook or on various places online talking about how "if the gummint takes away yer guns then who'll defend yer famlee?" One facebook friend cited New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as an example - apparently the "gummint" took away people's guns and they had nothing to defend themselves as they were killed and raped. Unfortunately I can't find any sources that aren't the NRA, gun owner sites, or "angry man" websites with pro-gun leanings - that is to say no legitimate sources. The fact is, though, if the "gummint" decides to turn fascist and kill or imprison people for no reason, there is nothing anyone, armed or not, can do to stop it. Granted that's a piss-poor reason to go along with it but that is the damn fact. Hell, it's happened before, look at Japanese Americans in World War II.
I've never understood the desire to own, let alone carry around a lethal weapon. People who advocate for concealed-carry laws scare me even more. Why do you need to conceal it if you're so vocal about carrying it around? Why not just carry it around attached to your FOREHEAD for fuck's sake? I mean if every place was a place people could carry concealed weapons, I can't imagine any of these pro-gun people not wearing a t-shirt that said “yes I'm carrying a gun” (which come to think of it says a lot about t-shirts that announce things about the wearer as well as gun owners, but that's another entry).
Several weeks ago I heard a clip of Glenn Beck talking about how he went to see a movie with his concealed gun. He fully admitted he didn't have reason to, but he was simply exercising his right to carry a gun around in places with children and other law-abiding citizens (not including the teenagers sneaking into the R-rated film of your choice but I mean REAL laws). The fact is there's no legitimate reason he would need a gun. I don't think he lives in such a shithole that his local cinema's parking lot has frequent robberies or homicides. Within the cinema, there's probably a cop (when I worked at two different cinemas, the local police or sheriff's dept, whoever had jurisdiction, sent a guy to stand around and stop people being total assholes). Was he afraid of the violent liberals who were going to chant at him "learn to spell! learn to spell!"?
Or is he just woefully insecure and completely insane? I know he's completely insane, I'm asking more about the first one.
